Once I've bought it, it is mine. The entire idea that Apple can do whatever they want on a device that they have already sold is ludicrous.
Use it as a hammer for all Apple care.
It's just that Apple aren't going to spend their time and money developing software to let you do things they aren't interested in. Why should they?
They are spending time and money to prevent that. Or you can create an app store as an app and expect Apple to allow your "app store app" to ship in iPhones? The features are already there in the OS, they use them themselves. They dont need to do anything more.. but instead they work to cripple or prevent others from using it.
This is in essence the spirit of a monopoly.
Ok you personally dont mind for whatever reasons, but there a lot of other harms to the society and civil rights in general going on here. And that was the reason countries and laws exists.. To prevent people or companies in position of power to abuse their power.
I disagree I don't think the reason why have countries and laws is so that you can force someone else to support your product when they don't want to.
Imagine if windows crippled Netscape by forcing them to use Internet Explorer engine on Windows?
And this is just one thing Apple are doing that is unbelievable they are getting away with it.
Not letting other browsers use their own JS engine (which is what it means to 'forcing them to use Internet Explorer engine on Windows' in your analogy) is because Apple want to disallow write|execute for people's safety.
Perhaps you're right. Maybe it's entirely coincidental that Apple's policy also prevents owners of Apple devices from using a browser with modern features that would allow web apps to effectively compete with the native apps from which Apple gets a huge cut of the revenue because of its monopoly control over the app store.
Or the real reason, is as it was pointed out in the other comment, is to cripple other browser engines that offer a platform that could actually be competitive with AppleKit's turning their control over the App store (and what people are allowed to access according to their own taste) irrelevant?
And if that's the real reason behind it, its clear the end user best interests are not being taken into account, as in not having access to possible better options according to your own tastes, contrary to what a lot of people in the comments here are trying to make we believe its true.
I said you can do whatever you want.
I didn't say you can require other people to do what you want, like build software features for you.
You can, however, if you figure it out.
You largely had a choice of two products. It sounds like one did what you wanted, and one didn't. You bought the one that didn't and now you're unhappy about it. I don't quite understand that.
It’s pretty clear the only path out of this situation is to rethink antitrust laws in a society where companies have evolved to evade them, and to legislate.
What’s wrong with people wanting Apple and Google to follow some rules?
Having a rule that all smartphones should allow sideloading would not be the end of the world for people who like Apple’s app store. Those people would still have the choice to us it.
So what I'm really curious about is why is that? Regardless of the legality beyond it, why did you make a choice you're upset with?
Do you also complain that you can’t put gas in a Tesla even though you should have known that it was designed that way?
Did you watch the hearing the other day? Do you really trust those people to regulate tech?
Two products is not a huge number. It seems likely that neither product was exactly what they want, and this is just a particular thing they don't like about iPhones.
To many people, the fault you find in the product is the added value that differentiates it from competitors.
Most people are “forced” to get internet through their cable company because there often isn’t a choice. How many people have to buy a phone that on average is twice as expensive as the alternative and then complain about it?